The state Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Bill 11, the Colorado Civil Union Act, on a 3-2 party-line vote. The fact that Colorado voters rejected the notion of civil unions in 2006 [Referendum I would have established domestic partnerships] is apparently of little concern to sponsors of the bill. Why would a measure which would impact the lives of all Coloradans not be submitted as a ballot initiative?

As Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila said, the bill has grave implications for religious freedom. Social service agencies such as Catholic Charities will no longer be able to provide traditional adoption and foster care to needy families.

Gov. John Hickenlooper should think twice about signing into law a bill which would imperil the lives of Colorado families for generations. Even if the governor does not accede to the fact that civil unions are immoral, the infringement of the bill on religious freedom is clear evidence that SB 11 would have grave implications for Catholics and Protestants alike.

Brian Stuckey, Denver

This letter was published in the Feb. 3 edition.

I am very disappointed in the sponsors of Senate Bill 11. Last year they listened to adoption placement organizations that, for moral and/or religious reasons, would not place a child outside a marriage. The Senate sponsor, Pat Steadman, went out of his way last year to ensure religious freedom for organizations that will not place a child outside a marriage.

This year however, Sen. Steadman claims that since organizations like Catholic Charities will not support the bill anyway, all religious freedom protection has been dropped. This violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

They claim that the religious exemption discriminates against couples who are not married. Yet, in the name of non-discrimination, they will discriminate against adoption agencies that, for moral or religious reasons, will not place a child outside of marriage. What hypocrisy!

Letter-writer Alice J. Nichol (former Colorado legislator and Adams County commissioner) criticizes Rep. Mark Ferrandino and Sen. Pat Steadman for their “disregard for the need to work with those who do not follow in line with their personal legacy,” and says they do not respect her Catholic faith. She says civil unions would infringe on religious liberty.

It appears that Ms. Nichol’s and Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila’s concept of religious liberty is freedom to make the law correspond to their particular beliefs. This position disregards the religious liberty of everyone who does not follow the Catholic faith. All religious organizations, and Ms. Nichol, are free to follow their beliefs with no interference from government. They can decide whom they will marry: specifically, the Catholic church can refuse to marry same-sex couples; Unitarians can joyfully celebrate their unions.

The real issue is not religious. The issue is whether everyone is equal under the law, whether every adult of sound mind is free to marry the person they love.

Don Bishop, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Feb. 3 edition.

Marriage licenses are issued by the state. The state is not involved in religion. No member of the clergy is necessary for two people to marry. In fact, in Colorado nobody is required to officiate at a wedding or make any statement about the couple being married. All rights, benefits, obligations and requirements of marriage are granted and/or enforced by state law, not religious law. It is unconscionable to prohibit two consenting adults from joining together legally in a contract offered only by the state. It is clearly unconstitutional to deny them this right, even if activist judges think it isn’t. Religious arguments have no bearing on the issue; it is a civil matter.

I find it puzzling that the Colorado Catholic Conference, which organized the Jan. 25 rally at the Capitol, states that it supports “traditional marriage — the cornerstone of society.” With a divorce rate consistently near 50 percent, can “traditional marriage” be considered a “cornerstone”? Perhaps allowing civil unions as a step toward same-sex marriage, in addition to granting same-sex couples their civil rights, may improve the statistics and the divorce rate could someday be below 50 percent. Then we may have a true “cornerstone.”

Martin E. O’Brien, Centennial

This letter was published in the Feb. 3 edition.

Good God Almighty! Alice J. Nichol does not know what the First Amendment to the Constitution says? For all our benefit, the first clause is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … ” (my italics). Ms. Nichol, in comments regarding the potential passage of civil unions, opines, “I find it particularly disturbing that Sen. [Pat] Steadman’s power will not respect my Catholic faith and religious liberty.” What kind of ignorant and arrogant thinking is this?

By the way, initially the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, but, starting with Gitlow vs. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently applied the First Amendment to each state, including Colorado. No religion in government, please!

F. Brent Reeves, Fort Collins

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[4]. Follow eLetters[5] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

There is a reason Senator Pat Steadman left SB 11 blank on the subject of adoption agencies.
Last year, Sen. Steadman did try to appease adoption agencies by granting them a narrow exemption from having to serve same-sex couples, and the next thing that happened was other groups demanded exemption. Private schools with no religious connection demanded exemption from having to accept the students of same-sex couples. Then completely secular businesses demanded exemption from having to provide goods and services to same-sex couples. Butchers, bakers, and candle-stick makers demanded exemption.
And all along, the Roman Catholic bishops thundered their opposition, the legislative opponents still would not accept civil unions even with explicitly stated exemptions that do not appear in Colorado’s regular marriage laws, and Speaker McNulty played shenanigans.
So, this year, Sen. Steadman is writing the bill; the way he wants it to be written.
No church will ever have to recognize same-sex civil unions. Something the apoplectic representatives of certain churches refuse to recognize.

#2 Comment By peterpi On February 2, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

Hmmm, I wonder if right now, the Roman Catholic adoption agencies use their religious status to deny services to straight couples wanting to adopt?
Like,
Unmarried couples?
Non-Catholic couples?
Non-religious couples?
If they do, what makes these agencies think they won’t be able to deny adoption services to same-sewx couples, if that’s what the Roman Catholic Church leadership demands?

#3 Comment By Robtf777 On February 2, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

“Should the Colorado legislature enact civil unions?”
=======
No.

The issue is much. much bigger than the Colorado Legislature, Colorado itself, the United States, or even the Entire World.

Unfortunately…..most people don’t realize how big the issue is.

No one MUST believe in God…..or the Bible……or Jesus……or His Word.

But just because no one MUST believe in those things…….does it mean that those things take a subordinate position to the whims of men and women who deny the truth of them.

Those who disagree with God….the Bible…..Jesus…..His Word…..are BETTING….all eternity…..that Bible-believers are wrong…..and/or that God “grades on a curve.”

Bible-believers are not wrong……and God does not grade on a curve.

It’s like Joshua once said: “You can do whatever you want to do; but as for me and my household, we will follow God.”

And……it’s just as Jesus said it would be: The end times will be like the days of Noah. People will be marrying and eating and drinking and laughing.

How close our we to that “end time”? The answer is as simple as this question: How soon will the Middle East Peace Treaty that “the whole world”…..”groans” for…..be signed?

#4 Comment By DR On February 3, 2013 @ 5:00 am

Maybe I’m just slow when it comes to this whole gay-marriage issue…but could someone please explain to me how the government granting civil-unions to same sex couples infringes on someone else’s “religious liberties”?

#5 Comment By TomFromTheNews On February 3, 2013 @ 8:30 am

I think they’re afraid that if they don’t approve of such unions they will be forced to recognize them, or have to grant services to them, or else be labeled unlawfully “phobic”. (Which sort of sounds like the dictionary definition of a “phobia”.) Their spin on this is that their “right” to discriminate against these couples is a matter of free speech covered by the Constitution. Or something like that.

You’re right. I don’t get it, either.

#6 Comment By TomFromTheNews On February 3, 2013 @ 8:34 am

Robtf (to whom I almost never address a post): the New Testament (at least) makes no reference to homosexuality in any way. And to call the decision to commit to the love of your life and expect the respect of society as a “whim” is appallingly offensive. But we expect no less from you around here.

#7 Comment By peterpi On February 3, 2013 @ 9:18 am

I’d say you got it very well.

#8 Comment By Irisman On February 3, 2013 @ 9:28 am

It looks like a no-brainer to me. The majority of the voters favor civil unions, and many of the churches are OK with that, so the legislature will approve it this year. Some churches are strongly opposed to gay civil unions, and that’s their right. Those churches need to realize that they’re not running the government ( see the First Amendment)

#9 Comment By bleeth On February 3, 2013 @ 1:42 pm

There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

Two people that love each other should be able to get married and adopt children. These close-minded boneheads still living in the 15th century that gripe and moan about how we need to give constitutional rights to zygotes are the very same people that don’t want homosexuals to have the same constitutional rights as the rest of us.

Hypocrites all of them.

#10 Comment By DR On February 3, 2013 @ 6:44 pm

Ah ok. That makes sense (your explanation. Not their nutty, ignorant position). Thank you for the explanation.

#11 Comment By GregoryR On February 3, 2013 @ 11:35 pm

Sigh. As I’ve stated ad nauseam simply strip the word marriage from these glorified merger contracts and replace it with the words civil union. Problem solved.

#12 Comment By GregoryR On February 3, 2013 @ 11:41 pm

Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. Kindly stop with the biblioidolatry.
Anyway, untill the state tries to force churches to marry same sex couples you have no legitimate complaint. The Church and the state operate in different spheres in this country as they should.

#13 Comment By DR On February 3, 2013 @ 11:41 pm

“Bible-believers are not wrong……and God does not grade on a curve.”

Thats odd. When I was a Christian I was taught and every Christian I’ve ever talked to since always goes out of their way to point out that “works, deeds or actions” cannot get you into or keep you out of heaven. Only asking or not asking for forgiveness.

Or do you just change God’s word whenever you feel the need to condemn others?

#14 Comment By peterpi On February 3, 2013 @ 11:44 pm

What was your first clue?

#15 Comment By peterpi On February 3, 2013 @ 11:45 pm

Minor miracle: You, thor, and I are essentially on the same page.

#16 Comment By GregoryR On February 3, 2013 @ 11:45 pm

Some of St Paul’s epistles make reference to homosexuality so yes the New Testament indeed does.
The Gospels on the other hand do not.
Still Christianity is based on traditions which are larger than the Bible, traditions which do not necessarily attack homosexuality as is oft done these days but which also didn’t condone it either.

#17 Comment By GregoryR On February 3, 2013 @ 11:46 pm

Stranger things have happened. But not many.

#18 Comment By peterpi On February 3, 2013 @ 11:47 pm

A “lot” of debate about that.
There’s no proof, according to some, that Paul was taking about gay people in the modern sense of the word, unlike what the bible thumpers claim.

#19 Comment By DR On February 3, 2013 @ 11:52 pm

“The end times will be like the days of Noah. People will be marrying and eating and drinking and laughing.”

So in other words they’ll be happy and peaceful as opposed to constantly making war and killing each other?

I fail to see the downside.

Of course, Christianity has always had the slight taste of a death cult in its recipe.

#20 Comment By GregoryR On February 3, 2013 @ 11:56 pm

Well the broader tradition says he was, along with some other pagan temple practices too boot. Still the issue was more nuanced then the average Sola Scriptora type is willing to admit. Where Lot is concerned a big issue there is the violation of the rule of hospitality.
Even then this isn’t a theocracy and while there are things which the Church cannot accept that doesn’t mean the state isn’t free to.

#21 Comment By DR On February 4, 2013 @ 12:00 am

haha

#22 Comment By peterpi On February 4, 2013 @ 12:01 am

Yep.
Regarding Lot, I’ve always been told that, within the Jewish tradition, it had more to do with lack of hospitality than sexual immorality. There is that whole nasty business of Lot offering up his daughter(s) if the men of the town would leave the strangers alone. Fortunately, God then blinded all the men of the town before Lot’s daughters could come to harm.

#23 Comment By GregoryR On February 4, 2013 @ 12:05 am

He just gets to pick and choose what he believes. All that stuff about caring for the sick is optional, while bans on sexual behavior aren’t and are in fact worthy if getting the secular government to enforce.

#24 Comment By TomFromTheNews On February 4, 2013 @ 7:29 am

Yep. But until that day, “civil unions” will only a baby step toward full marriage equality.

#25 Comment By TomFromTheNews On February 4, 2013 @ 8:21 am

“Gov. John Hickenlooper should think twice about signing into law a bill
which would imperil the lives of Colorado families for generations.”

Brian, there is an expression we use in the gay community (though it has trickled into general parlance): “drama queen”. If you feel this strongly about civil unions, I fear for your blood pressure when we finally get around to enacting real marriage equality in this state.

#26 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 4, 2013 @ 8:36 am

People in favor of gay marriage always ask how gay marriage can adversely affect heterosexual marriage. I think you just showed us how. “Simply strip the word marriage from these glorified merger contracts…”

I’m reminded of the Vietnam war when Peter Arnett said, “We had to destroy the town in order to save it.”

#27 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 4, 2013 @ 8:38 am

When it comes to gay marriage, you are like Robt and abortion.

#28 Comment By GregoryR On February 4, 2013 @ 6:31 pm

How does changing the name of a secular legal document effect heterosexuals in any way?
I certainly don’t propose doing so on documents issued by religious institutions. Marriage in the West has developed into a primarily religious institution and that’s fine. The licenses issued by the state are not religious. They are purely secular documents merging two people and laying the ground work for distribution of property etc should one or both parties wish to go their separate ways.

#29 Comment By peterpi On February 4, 2013 @ 6:47 pm

I swear some opponents think the following:
Mike and Jane meet in church. They date each other, and after a while decide they are meant for each other. They decide on the date to get married, and as the time grows near, they go to city hall to get their civil marriage license. While at city hall, they see Mark and Joe waiting in line for the same reason.
Mike and Jane run shrieking from the building, shouting “Those darn homosexuals (or very, very strong word to that effect)! They’ve ruined everything! We might as well go our separate ways and live a life of sin and debauchery!”

#30 Comment By peterpi On February 4, 2013 @ 7:01 pm

Gregory is trying to make a point about civil marriage licenses that you deliberately ignore.

#31 Comment By GregoryR On February 4, 2013 @ 9:14 pm

Ding ding ding!!! Hotdog we have a wiener!
The problem is some people can’t separate civil secular things from sacred religious things.

#32 Comment By GregoryR On February 4, 2013 @ 9:17 pm

You forget to add a comment about cooties.
Anyway, the whole premise is so silly it’s beyond belief. If anything will get couples to flee the courthouse it’s the odor from the transient who mistakenly got in line at the Clerk and Recorder to pay his drunk in public fine.

#33 Comment By peterpi On February 4, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

Bulls-eye! Goooaaaalll!

#34 Comment By peterpi On February 5, 2013 @ 3:07 pm

England’s parliament just passed on second reading a proposed bill by the PM David Cameron (Conservative Party, by the way) to include gay and lesbian couples in Britain’s civil (note, jay, that’s “c-i-v-i-l”) marriage laws.
I had to pass on this comment, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal article:
When MPs started talking about tradition and belittling heterosexuals, Conservative MP Nick Herbert shot back, “Will married couples really say: ‘Darling, our marriage is over….Elton John has just got engaged to David Furnish?’ ”
LOL
They even “get it” across The Pond.
I guess the DP is squeamish about hyperlinks, so I got the article from the online Wall Street Journal, by way of Google News. I was able to link straight to the article. I dunno if you go to the WSJ website whether there is a paywall.

#35 Comment By GregoryR On February 7, 2013 @ 11:36 am

How does changing the name of a secular legal document effect heterosexuals in any way? I certainly don’t propose doing so on documents issued by religious institutions. Marriage in the West has developed into a primarily religious institution and that’s fine. The licenses issued by the state are not religious. They are purely secular documents merging two people and laying the ground work for distribution of property etc should one or both parties wish to go their separate ways.